Karaoke Forums

Yeah, that's kinda like what I do... buy damaged used vehicles and then go around getting parts off vehicles in bars' carparks (especially the one's with DJ and Karaoke company signwriting on 'em) so I can repair them. Any of you guys missing a few bits?

Not the same thing at all. In Canada, at least, if you own the original disc, you CAN download the same content. It doesn't matter what condition the disc is in....
Remember, the person who sells the damaged disc is the one who can no longer use the content, NOT the new owner.

Hmmmm, maybe I can break my discs into 10 pieces and sell each piece as a broken disc at 10 bucks a pop and the people that buy the pieces can download the tracks and use them legally. JK

Diafel, that's for private use, not professional. For a DJ to convert from disc or other media. he or she can get the licence from AVLA. Unfortunately CDGs are not included due to the sync rights.

http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=avla ... Lang=en-CA

http://www.avla2007.ca/public/docs/dj_pulse_aug04.pdf

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Don't know what you folks are off on, but when I talk about buying damaged discs, I mean buying heavily discounted, repairing to a new state, and using in my show- I'm disc based. New music for a cheap price, thanks to a professional resurfacing machine. "1:1" is of no significance to me.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

This is what I am hearing from a good friend in Fl:

SC is continuing to name/accuse KJ's in South Florida; at least 15 of which were suggested by Sounds of Stardom (one of the original accused).

Several of the accused have already settled and it is estimated that when all is said and done SC will take in around $100,000 in Florida

Only pirated SC tracks have been eliminated from the pirated libraries of the accused

None of the accused operators have shut down. NONE!

I contacted the two guys that I know here in the Tampa Bay area that were named in the SC suit. Both of them laughed me out of the room saying that they have not been contacted or told by anyone that they were being sued, and even after I led them to the suit Web site, they still don't believe me.

It is very very sh***y if SC is actually TRYING to get default judgements, then dealing with everyone after the fact. It looks to me like a good % of the accused are not even getting the chance to defend themselves, maybe by design.

_________________
C Mc
KJ, FL

Exactly.

SC is not out to stop pirates for you or anyone else...they want to sell them discs.

SC doesn't care if every venue drops karaoke and their actions hurt the legitimate operators, they are out to sell discs.

SC Doesn't want to put pirates out of business... they want them to stay in business and sell them discs. Hence, none are out of business.

How profitable are these lawsuits? Let's do the math:

(1) Filing fee: $350.00 [ file ONE suit, naming 20 clubs/KJ's so your amortized cost-per-KJ is about $17.00 ]

(2) AVOID actually "serving" any of them or really getting into a trial... because that would be about $45.00 each just for the process server not to mention trial costs.

(3) Mail them a copy of the unserverd suit and then strong arm them into purchasing discs.

(4) If 90% are perfectly legal and only 10% (2) of those named buy discs, then that would be $13,000.00 income, minus the filing fee of $350 and (let's say) about $2,500 to the attorney.

Approx "profit" from this is in the neighborhood of $10,000.00

So it is in their best interest to name as MANY kj's as they can possibly find, legal or not, throw the S*** at the wall and see how much of it sticks. If you're legal, so what? It only cost $17 to make you prove it.

What great business plan and you can do it all from the comfort of your easy chair because it's a federal suit. It's just like the old KAPA stuff except they don't have to prove anything... you have to prove your own innocence all for the bargain price of less than $20 per KJ....

Maybe the local process server hasn't gotten around to serving them yet.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

This would be a very unwise thing to do and no professional process server would o this. The consequences of this would result in criminal charges and loss of licence for the process server.

As for mailing, the only recognized method of mailing is registered mail where the recipient has to sign for it.

The other possibility is the receiving party is avoiding service.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

SC is under no obligation to hire a process server or even to serve the defendants if they don't ever intend to go into a court room.
What c. staley is getting at, is that SC, in all likelihood, is just making sure the defendants know about the suit so that they contact SC, themselves, without formal service. Then SC can extort the money out of them.
This way, the inside of a courtroom is never seen and SC gets their money without having to prove legitimate service of papers to the judge. If SC doesn't legally serve the defendants, they can't go into a courtroom to get default judgments until such time as they DO serve them, or prove it was impossible to do so, because any judge would send them packing otherwise.
It's a rather ingenious scheme if the defendants don't know they have to be legally served.
Another trick to add to the scheme could be that once the defendants show up for negotiations, someone from SC hands them a copy of the suit, thereby effecting legal service. Then all that needs to be done is for the SC rep to sign an affidavit stating that they personally served the defendant. Then they are free hit the courtroom should negotiations prove fruitless. That method would save SC tons in process serving as well.

SC must be able PROVE to a judge that EVERY effort was made to serve the defendant. If they are just avoiding service, you still must serve them, regardless, and a judge would send SC packing until such time as they did.
If the defendant couldn't be found, SC would have to PROVE that they tried every possible means to locate them. ie: hired a private investigator, checked with family, friends, last know place of employment, etc. Even then, I can pretty much guarantee that a judge would be VERY reluctant to issue a decree in absentia. It's not something that is commonly done and it's not something that is done lightly, either.
So I highly doubt that SC is trying to get default judgments first, then deal with the defendant after the fact. It's just not that easy to do and it can cost a ton of extra money with all the process servers and private investigators etc, not to mention the extra courtroom time involved.

They wouldn't have to go through all that. If a Defendant is avoiding service then a judge can grant an Order of Substitute Service which could be served on a family member or employer, or significant other, etc.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

They have to PROVE that a defendant is avoiding service first.
I should know. One of the hats I wear is a process server.
I've been involved in just such cases in the past. Sometimes it can take years to serve a person and / or prove that all reasonable means were exhausted before a judge will make such a decree.

Any confirmation of alleged settlements? Documentation? Links? I mean PAID settlements?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Diafel, I've never taken more than a couple of months to serve any document and never had a request for a substitution order refused in 30 years.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

NOW we're getting somewhere! Thanks, Diafel.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Absolutely, positively, 420 !

You do good work- but you haven't done it for a Sound Choice case, have you?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Then you have been lucky and you have obviously never been given the "difficult" cases.
I have.